On 03/30/20 at 04:16pm, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 03/30/20 at 09:42am, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sat 28-03-20 11:31:17, Hoan Tran wrote:
> > > In NUMA layout which nodes have memory ranges that span across other nodes,
> > > the mm driver can detect the memory node id incorrectly.
> > >
> > > For example, with layout below
> > > Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx 0000 xxxx
> > > Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 xxxx 1111
> > >
> > > Note:
> > > - Memory from low to high
> > > - 0/1: Node id
> > > - x: Invalid memory of a node
> > >
> > > When mm probes the memory map, without CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> > > config, mm only checks the memory validity but not the node id.
> > > Because of that, Node 1 also detects the memory from node 0 as below
> > > when it scans from the start address to the end address of node 1.
> > >
> > > Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx
> > > Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 1111 1111
> > >
> > > This layout could occur on any architecture. Most of them enables
> > > this config by default with CONFIG_NUMA. This patch, by default, enables
> > > CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES or uses early_pfn_in_nid() for NUMA.
> >
> > I am not opposed to this at all. It reduces the config space and that is
> > a good thing on its own. The history has shown that meory layout might
> > be really wild wrt NUMA. The config is only used for early_pfn_in_nid
> > which is clearly an overkill.
> >
> > Your description doesn't really explain why this is safe though. The
> > history of this config is somehow messy, though. Mike has tried
> > to remove it a94b3ab7eab4 ("[PATCH] mm: remove arch independent
> > NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES") just to be reintroduced by 7516795739bd
> > ("[PATCH] Reintroduce NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES for powerpc") without any
> > reasoning what so ever. This doesn't make it really easy see whether
> > reasons for reintroduction are still there. Maybe there are some subtle
> > dependencies. I do not see any TBH but that might be burried deep in an
> > arch specific code.
>
> Yeah, since early_pfnnid_cache was added, we do not need worry about the
> performance. But when I read the mem init code on x86 again, I do see there
> are codes to handle the node overlapping, e.g in numa_cleanup_meminfo(),
> when store node id into memblock. But the thing is if we have
> encountered the node overlapping, we just return ahead of time, leave
> something uninitialized. I am wondering if the system with node
> overlapping can still run heathily.
Ok, I didn't read code carefully. That is handling case where memblock
with different node id overlap, it needs return. In the example
Hoan gave, it has no problem, system can run well. Please ignore above
comment.
